High Efficiency Hybrid Car Planned For 2009 371
An anonymous reader writes "You may have heard some of the hype last month when California-based Aptera let out first word of its allegedly super fuel-efficient (and cheap) Typ-1 electric vehicle. A video test drive and gee-whiz specs breakdown at the Popular Mechanics site proves that this thing is for real. The plan is to have a vehicle that goes 120 miles on a single lithium-phosphate pack charge for 2008, with a 300-mpg model to follow by 2009. Aptera is also mentioned in Wired's new cover story as one of several early front-runners for the Automotive X Prize."
Re:300 What? (Score:2, Informative)
Read the articles. That what the links are for.
Re:300 What? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Three wheels? (Score:5, Informative)
So the fact that is this not a car but a motorcycle I think they are labeling it wrong, A 300MPG Car???, nope a 300MPG enclosed bike is what it is. Heck my wife's scooter gets 70MPG.
The previous post talks about rain a snow? Do you ride a motorcycle in the snow. Nope, same goes for this.
Re:Electrics burn coal? (Score:2, Informative)
In order to win the X-Prize, they must take into account the upstream (ie powerplant) green house gas production that it takes to power the car.
Aptera right now is 350 MPG, and estimated cost of $24-27k.
Thats pretty bad ass IMO
Too expensive, too small, and too fragile (Score:3, Informative)
Finally, the last point, the car looks like its flimsy and just a toy. I wonder if they've done any crash testing on it. If a minor collision completely destroys the drag profile and requires $15k in repairs then insurance is going to be astronomical for the car. How sturdy are the body panels and how easily replaceable are they? How does it do in a collision with an 18-wheeler? It's going to be hard to convince (especially) Americans that a car like that is safer on the roads than an SUV.
I wish them luck, and maybe in a few generations it will be popular, but it's going to take a lot of work.
Re:Electrics burn coal? (Score:3, Informative)
And that's completely ignoring the fact that in California, the law requires that your power company provide you the option to buy "green" power: power produced by wind, solar, geothermal, or hydroelectric sources. It tends to be a little more expensive than normal power, but I'm guessing that the kind of person who wouldn't balk at buying a $30,000 car simply because it's electric (when you can get a *very* efficient gasoline car for less than half the price) probably wouldn't be all that concerned about an extra $0.02/kwh.
Re:300 What? (Score:4, Informative)
Though for the optimal apples-to-apples comparison, you might as well just take a given gasoline price and compute how much it costs to power one mile of travel for that price, vs. some existing car being used today.
Battery choice is interesting (Score:5, Informative)
(I should mention for the conspiracy fans among us that the patent holder is Chevron).
Anybody who wants to build an electric car or hybrid car design that requires a large battery capacity can't use the safe and proven NiMH technology. This makes the plug-in hybrid, which needs more electrical storage than an ordinary hybrid, the domain of aftermarket kits only.
Lithium Phosphate, once it becomes economical to produce, might well make better hybrid, or even plug-in hybrid technology a commercial reality. While not quite as good as Li-ion, it's inherently safer and (if reports are to be beleived) superior in performance to NiMH.
$30,000 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But, will it fly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But, will it fly? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Battery choice is interesting (Score:1, Informative)
So Chevron is not running around trying to buy up and suppress the technology.
They bought an oil company, which owned a subsidiary JV with GM, and they are not suing individuals.
I found this detailed comment about the NiMH patent situation on the EVWorld site's forums
Paul Peterson 12/Feb/2007 23:45
RE:New Larger NIMH Batteries?
An electric motorcycle conversion does sound like an interesting project. Best of luck with it. I hope you keep those of us who watch this forum updated.
Just a word on the Cobasys patent situation. Cobasys has some basic patents on NiMH batteries from the work of Stan Ovshinsky. There is a portfolio of them, and they expire in the 2012 to 2014 timeframe.
The two main NiMH battery makers in the world are Panasonic and Sanyo. Because Toyota uses Panasonic NiMH batteries in the Prius, Cobasys sued Panasonic and Toyota. They settled the case. Among other things, Panasonic and Toyota paid Cobasys $30 million and agreed to pay a 3% royalty on sales in the US. Panasonic also agreed to restrictions on the size of batteries it could sell into the US, and what it could sell for automotive applications. These restrictions expire in 2007 and 2010.
Finally, Panasonic and Cobasys agreed to cooperate on battery research and development. As these things go, it appears to have been a fairly amicable settlement.
Cobasys claims that it is doing everything it can to sell large-format NiMH batteries in the US for automotive applications. In fact, it has a long-standing relationship with GM (who originally owned a large stake in Cobasys before selling its shares to Texaco), and has a contract with GM to sell it NiMH batteries for the Saturn VUE.
But several people have noted that Cobasys will do nothing to accommodate those who want a small number of large-format NiMH batteries for use in cars, either conversions or limited production vehicles. Having chased Panasonic (and its 95 amp hour NiMH batteries) from the US market, we now have no place to turn.
I do not know the size of Cobasys's patent portfolio outside the US. My sense, though, is that Cobasys has not and will not pursue NiMH battery makers outside the US. Patent litigation is uncertain and expensive. The stakes outside the US are not high enough to make it worth Cobasys's while to file suit.
Sanyo is a long-standing licensee of the Cobasys patents. In fact, Sanyo indirectly owns 1% of Cobasys. Sanyo may have some restrictions on its license as well.
There is no evidence, although many speculate to the contrary, that the Cobasys lawsuit had anything to do with the demise of the RAV4 EV. Nor that Chevron, who now has a 50% stake in Cobasys from its acquiring Texaco, is attempting to smother electric vehicles by having Cobasys aggressively assert its patents.
What does that mean for you? If you buy some NiMH batteries overseas and import them into the US, you will be subject to suit by Cobasys under its patents. Patent law covers the acts of making, using and selling. You would be using the batteries, which would be an infringing act if the batteries infringe the Cobasys patents. In addition, Cobasys could sue to stop the importation of infringing products. That is an ITC action, not in the federal courts, which hear patent infringement cases.
The chances of Cobasys coming after you, an individual, are small. And you might be able to mount a research defense -- you are allowed to carry out research, even if it involves acts that would otherwise be infringing. But a foreign company may want to stay out of trouble and be unwilling to ship NiMH batteries to the US. So it may be difficult to get the batteries here.
on the market already (Score:5, Informative)
You'll be seeing diesel electric drivetrains in normal cars and pickups real soon now. Real soon. Suburban guys and contractors are gonna eat them things up off the lots as soon as they hit. Same power as a big gas engine, twice the mileage, same towing capacity, double duty as the home or jobsite backup generator. Americans *like* pickups and SUVs, that style is *not* going away, that's where a big part of the market is, so plugin hybrids will be coming to a lot near you soon in pickup and SUV models. It might be the japanese have them first, but who knows, detroit is getting desperate and I bet there's some skunk works action going on there. They can be motivated at times to actually produce. The shareholder pressure and market pressure is now intense, that will have an effect.
Re:Other incentives (Score:3, Informative)
Please go out and find Who killed the electrical car [imdb.com]
According to that documentary, there already were "electric charge stations" all over the USA, until someone decided they didn't want to produce those cars anymore.
Re:Too expensive, too small, and too fragile (Score:3, Informative)
It states in the article that this car passed government testing in a 45mph frontal offset collision. I don't know what other tests they've done, but it passed that one.
They also state that the side panels/doors all pass government testing. As for repairs the whole car is made of modular panels which can be snapped in place by 3 people. They say the panels are economical to produce, they don't state a price though... so it could be 5-10k to replace a panel, although I doubt it, cause they have more than 5 panels in the car, and they've gotta make money (26-29k won't make money if the panels alone cost 25k).
Obviously if you are in a serious enough accident that it bends the chassis, snapping these panels on will become much more arduous. I don't represent the company, I got all this information from the article, I can imagine that it will be expensive to repair after an accident, but so is every other car I've driven/seen. My brother was in a 15mph collision earlier this year, the damage to his subaru cost 9500 to repair. Incidentally this collision was with a semi truck...
Re:But, will it fly? (Score:3, Informative)
I know you wanted first post, so I don't blame you for not reading TFA. However, you got it 100% wrong. Better luck next first-post.
lithium-ferro phosphate (Score:4, Informative)
Our battery has a five-year life. You can go to 2,000 charge/recharge cycles. The lithium-ion battery in my ThinkPad is supposed to last for 500 charges, but in practice it's more like 200. So, moving to lithium-ferro phosphate is really cool because you don't have to spend additional money on periodic battery replacement costs, regardless of the environment.
Also, lithium-ferro phosphate is pretty environmen- tally friendly. Some early studies we did suggested that it possibly can decompose into fertilizer (with processing). Typically we think of batteries as environmentally bad, but there's some indication that lithium-ferro phosphate isn't that harmful. We haven't quite gone through all of the rigor on this, however, and it does require some processing to decompose it into fertilizer.
Re:Electrics burn coal? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But, will it fly? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Electrics burn coal? (Score:3, Informative)
Since it was shown by measurements temperature measurements. Measurements are observations, and observations are (the only things which, in scientific terms, are properly labelled as) facts.
Technically, the degree to which that warming is anthropogenic and, a fortiori, the degree to which it is associated with particular causes will always be a matter of theory, rather than fact, just as, e.g., evolution and gravitation are theories.
Nevertheless, many components of the relevant theory are rather well-tested.
No, in fact, whether there is an increase over the history of measurements in global temperatures is not hotly debated.
There is little serious scientific debate over whether or not the current warming trend is substantially influenced by anthropogenic factors, especially greenhouse gas emissions. There is some debate over the precise degree, and whether other, non-anthropogenic, factors in net reinforce the warming trend or run counter to it (IIRC, the best current evidence is that the net of non-anthropogenic factors favors cooling for the last several decades despite observed continued warming, and that anthropogenic factors are, therefore, responsible for more than all of the observed warming. But there is certainly some debate about that, and some reasonably believe that anthropogenic factors explain less than all of the observed warming.)
We have a pretty good idea of which natural phenomena have major influences, though there are some gaps and some legitimate dispute about the exact contribution of each.We can't even change the course of a single thunderstorm yet, so reversing change to the climate globally seems like an exercise in futility, doesn't it?)
Its often easier to control an aggregate than the individual events that make it up. That's how (e.g.) casinos manage to operate at a profit: they don't have to control the outcome of a single spin of the roulette wheel to control the long-term payoff. Similarly, the ability to control individual weather events and the ability to influence climate are two completely different things, and the inability to do the former says nothing about ability to do the latter.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea of the degree of influence of "solar forcing" over the recent portion of the warming trend.
We actually have a pretty good idea, here, too, that they mostly contribute to cooling in the short term, and global activity isn't overall enough to do much for long-term warming, barring a major eruption of either a giant caldera volcano (like Yellowstone) or flood basalt volcano (like the Columbia River Basalt group), none of which have occurred in (several times longer than the length of) recorded history.
If it didn't, it would certainly change what constitutes pollution. Lots of greenhouse gases aren't really "pollutants" in any other sense (they don't have negative effects other than their contribution to warming at the levels they are likely to be found without controls.) "Pollution" is defined by harmful effects.
Re:Other incentives (Score:3, Informative)
Note that I didn't mention the Aptera at all - I talked about electric vehicles, but no specific company or model. It could be a Tesla Volt - while it has similar cargo capacity is at least guarenteed to be a fun ride(if you're into that).
Probably even safer too.
As for the design, as another person noted, it's extreme streamlining to reduce air friction. You see this sort of stuff anytime you see extreme efficiency vehicles.
The EV1 was a more conventional design, as are any number of other attempts.
I doubt electrics will have enough torque to go over rocky terrain or through mud. Though, I suppose this is fine. It will just relegate the electric car to a commute car.
In a torque contest an electric motor of similar HP will slaughter most diesel engines, much less gasoline models.
The only thing holding back electric vehicles is the power source - batteries are simply too expensive and don't hold enough power.
Re:But, will it fly? (Score:4, Informative)
Midsize cars, large cars, minivans, and import luxury cars are all statistically safer for the driver than an SUV. Subcompacts are more dangerous for the driver, but because SUVs and pickups are more than twice as likely to kill someone else in an accident, that's only because of all the SUVs on the road. Obviously SUVs and trucks have their place, but the exemption in fuel efficiency standards for them should be removed, and they should be taxed like any gas guzzler.
The point, though, is that you can drive a midsize car, and you're just as safe as you would be in an SUV, and you're not putting the OTHER drivers at risk to get your safety. If you *really* want to be safe, then you want an import luxury car or a minivan, both of which are also significantly safer for other drivers than SUVs.
Courtesy of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab [lbl.gov] study on safety.
Re:300 What? (Score:3, Informative)
This page [aptera.com] on the Powertrain & Energy tab says that the 10e (electric model) uses a 10Kwh battery pack.
1 joule is 1 watt/second. So we take 10,000 watt-hours, multiply by 3600 (# seconds per hour) to get 36,000,000 joules total energy put in. So.... if a gallon of fuel is 125,000,000 joules, then we charged up with the equivalent energy of 0.288 gallons of fuel.
With a total range of 120 miles on 0.288 gallons of fuel it comes out to 428MPG. This is inexact obviously; I don't see what they're claiming for MPG on the electric model (though I'm sure it's less), but any difference could be accounted for in losses and/or margins of error such as actual versus listed capacity of the storage pack. If, for example, the battery pack actually holds 11Kwh instead of 10Kwh, the number drops to 378MPG. The point is that this CAN be calculated in terms of equivalency to gasoline based on the amount of potential energy in a gallon of gas.
That's the best I can come up with imperically off the top of my head. I'm without a doubt though that using the price of fuel versus the price of electricity to make this determination is not the way to go.
Re:on the market already (Score:3, Informative)